On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 07:33:38PM +0800, fgao@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Gao Feng <fgao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> PPP channel holds one spinlock before send frame. But the skb may
> select the same PPP channel with wrong route policy. As a result,
> the skb reaches the same channel path. It tries to get the same
> spinlock which is held before. Bang, the deadlock comes out.
>
Unless I misunderstood the problem you're trying to solve, this patch
doesn't really help: deadlock still occurs if the same IP is used for
L2TP and PPP's peer address.
> Now add one lock owner to avoid it like xmit_lock_owner of
> netdev_queue. Check the lock owner before try to get the spinlock.
> If the current cpu is already the owner, needn't lock again. When
> PPP channel holds the spinlock at the first time, it sets owner
> with current CPU ID.
>
I think you should forbid lock recursion entirely, and drop the packet
if the owner tries to re-acquire the channel lock. Otherwise you just
move the deadlock down the stack (l2tp_xmit_skb() can't be called
recursively).
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
> index 70cfa06..6909ab1 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
> @@ -162,6 +162,37 @@ struct ppp {
> |SC_MULTILINK|SC_MP_SHORTSEQ|SC_MP_XSHORTSEQ \
> |SC_COMP_TCP|SC_REJ_COMP_TCP|SC_MUST_COMP)
>
> +struct chennel_lock {
^
I guess you meant 'channel_lock'.
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + u32 owner;
This field's default value is -1. So why not declaring it as 'int'?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
